The invention relates to the field of bone void fillers, and their use for the treatment of orthopedic conditions.
Physicians are sometimes called upon to repair bone that has been damaged by disease, trauma, osseous surgery or other causes, or to cause bone material to grow where there has been no bone before, such as during a spine fusion procedure. As an outcome of that procedure, it is desirable for two or more vertebral bodies to be maintained in a specific orientation. This can be accomplished by growing a column or bridge of rigid bone between the vertebral bodies. This maintains them in a fixed position relative to each other. The repair of long bone fractures can often be accomplished merely by relocating disrupted bone elements into natural proximity and fixing them in place until they can heal together. This is the approach taken in repairing ordinary limb fractures, for example. The fractured bone is re-set, then immobilized for a period of weeks in a rigid or semi-rigid cast or splint as the fractured elements heal.
Sometimes, however, this approach is insufficient because the patient has lost some of the bone. This can happen in certain kinds of trauma where the bone is so badly shattered that it cannot feasibly be pieced together. More often, it happens as a result of disease that destroys bone mass or as the result of osseous surgery in which destruction of bone mass is unavoidable. In these cases, there is no patient bone to re-set into proper position for healing. Instead, there is a void or defect that must somehow be filled, or a gap between two bone structures that needs to be filled with new bone. The filling of this defect or gap requires a material that is not only biocompatible but preferably will accept or even promote in-growing natural bone as the site heals. In such a mariner, the material ideally will eventually become resorbed as new in-growing natural bone takes its place as part of the skeletal structure. Completely resorbed material eliminates the possibility for a stress riser that can occur when foreign matter remains in the skeleton, potentially giving rise to a fracture in the future.
Numerous bone replacement materials have been employed by physicians with varying degrees of success. One approach is to use bone material recovered from the patient himself, or so-called autologous bone. This approach is advantageous in that it avoids biocompatibility and bio-rejection problems. However, such an approach necessarily involves two surgical procedures, two surgical sites, and two healing processes—one for the original injury and a second for the site of the donated bone material. This means greater cost, and increased risk of infection and morbidity for a patient that is already seriously ill or injured. Also, this approach can require a great deal of time and surgical skill as the surgeon removes the donated material from the donation site, shapes and fits it to the primary site, and then repairs both sites. Finally, there is quite obviously a limit to the amount of bone in the patient's body available to be sacrificed as donor material.
Alternatively, a particulate bone graft substitute can be used to fill the bone defect. The selection of the particulate bone graft substitute depends upon its intended function in the treatment, its biocompatibility with the human body and its availability. A key limitation is whether the function of the treatment requires that the material be resorbed by natural bodily actions or remain in place as permanent supporting structures. Of the useful ceramic particulates, allogenic material is readily available and, alternatively, xenogeneic bone sources are utilized as well. Synthetic materials, principally hydroxyapatite are also available. The ceramic particulates, unformulated, are available as dry granules and generally lack sufficient cohesiveness and adhesion for filling an osseous defect. Therefore, they are often mixed with an appropriate carrier.
In general, formulators of bone treatment materials have directed a great deal of effort to improve handling characteristics through selection of an appropriate carrier for delivering the bone repair material to the defect site. It is desirable that the bone repair material be easily placed, but not be allowed to migrate from the defect. In addition, and primarily, bone formation must not be inhibited by the carrier. That is, the carrier materials for the bone repair material must be biocompatible and not interfere with the mediated bone formation, while helping provide adequate spacing between the repair material particulates to allow for cell and vascular infiltration. The carrier material should biodegrade and be resorbed. However, too fast a degradation rate is not preferred since cellular and vascular infiltration cannot develop. Too slow of a resorption rate also interferes with cellular migration, vascular penetration and bone formation.
There remains a need for bone repair treatment formulations that include high concentrations of resorbable ceramic particulates in a carrier that, when applied to a defect site, remains with minimal migration of the ceramic particulates from the site of implantation.